Subscribe to Our Mailing List

"Balamand Explained": First Betrayal, Now Deception

by Bishop Auxentios of Photiki

A VERY important document ("The
Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches: Taking Steps to Overcome
Division; Controversy Over the Balamand Report") was
posted on the "Internet" in 1996, purporting to clarify
various controversies related to the "Balamand
Statement," a now infamous agreement reached between
Orthodox and Roman Catholic representatives at an ecumenical
gathering in Balamand, Lebanon, in 1992, declaring the Orthodox
Church and the Vatican "Sister Churches" and leaving
"to the mercy of God," to quote the text of the
agreement itself, "whatever may have been the past": a
virtual abandonment of the Orthodox Church's historical claims to
ecclesiastical primacy and of past Patristic and Synodal defenses
of the doctrinal purity of our Faith. No single individual is
credited with authorship of this "Internet" commentary
on that agreement; rather, we are told that the text was prepared
by the "Orthodox members of the official North American
Orthodox/Roman Catholic Consultation."

At first view, despite its brevity, the document seems candid
and even thorough in its efforts to dispel the acknowledged
concerns of the Faithful about the venturous accords contained in
the Balamand agreement and the rather precipitous language in
which they are couched. It discusses the history and purpose of
the ongoing joint consultations between Orthodox and Roman
Catholics, the problems presented by the Uniate Churches and
their impact on the dialogue, and the "method of
dialogue," that is, the functions of the various
consultations and what their productse.g., the Balamand
Statementare intended to accomplish. Against this background,
the document goes on to discuss the particulars of the
"Balamand Statement" itself, answering some ten
questions about its meaning and consequences, and concludes with
a positive appraisal: "The Balamand Document is a step in
the right direction."

The Lie. But is the analysis of the Balamand
controversy contained in this documentwhich manifestly reflects
the thinking of "professionals" in Orthodox
ecumenismin reality a fair and truthful one? A careful
examination of what is and what is not said in this
"explanation" suggests that it is not. Aside from its
poor composition and awkward languagecharacteristic features of
the gibberish and "double-talk" that typically flow
forth in ecumenical pronouncements, the document is in fact a
lie: a deceptive attempt to present the betrayal of Balamand as
something which it is not.

What does the document say to convince us that the fraudulent
accords settled upon at Balamand constitute a "step in the
right direction"? We are told that the real advances
resulting from the agreement are twofold. First, when the
Balamand proposals are fully implemented, this will entail the
repudiation by Rome of the Unia, long a violent source of
provocation to Orthodox communities, as a vehicle for the
re-unification of the two Churches. This, the authors of the
document state, constitutes a reversal of Rome's traditional
position regarding the Unia; so, it is presented as a victory of
sorts for the Orthodox.

Second, as the Balamand delegates themselves unabashedly
inform us, since Vatican II, their "thinking about the
nature of the Church has changed significantly." We are
boldly informed in the present document, therefore, that the
dialogues have embraced more ancient, and therefore more
Orthodox, formulae for dealing with the schism between Orthodoxy
and Rome. Again, in the curious, questionably literate, and
unquestionably bizarre "double-talk" of ecumenism, the
authors of the "Internet" document contend that,

...from understanding the Church as a juridical (legal)
body, the emphasis has come to [sic] understanding the Church
on the basis of reality of communion. Communion is the
relationship between Christ and the members of His body, the
Church, and the relationship between the members of the
Church, that comes from being members of the Body of Christ.
In theological language this re-emphasis of the ancient
Christian tradition about the nature of the Church is called
'communion ecclesiology.'

A similar instance of "renewed thinking," we learn
from the "Internet" "explanation" of the
Balamand agreement, is the adoption by both parties at the
meeting in Lebanon, Orthodox and Roman Catholic alike, of the
term "Sister Churches" in references to one another.
The employment of this "venerable term," we are told,
"has helped to place relations between our churches on a new
footing" and has been judged appropriateonce more in the
strange language of "ecumeni-talk"because of the
"shared thousand year experienced reality together."
Citing the Balamand statement itself, the document asserts that
Orthodox and Roman Catholics have found new respect for each
church's pastoral ministries: "Bishops and priests have the
duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit
has given to the bishops and priests of the other church."

Now that the Orthodox Church and Rome have put behind them the
inflammatory issue of Uniatism and have established one another's
legitimacy and essential equality at the bargaining table, the
"Internet" document concludes, they can cooperate in a
"'serene atmosphere' for renewed progress in dialogue
'toward the reestablishment of full communion.'" Such are
the wonderful fruits of Balamand.

Now, the Truth. When Orthodox Tradition and our
jurisdiction's Greek-language periodicals first decried the
Balamand agreement as a betrayal of Orthodoxy, several years ago,
Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and one of his Bishops in
America, Maximos of Pittsburgh, reacted to our comments with
harsh condemnations, declaring them the meanderings of fanatics
and hard-headed theological cretins. Nonetheless, despite their
condemnatory pronouncements and the subsequent justifications of
the Balamand accords by other Orthodox ecumenists in commentaries
like the "Internet" document in question, what happened
in Lebanon can be called nothing but a betrayal of the Orthodox
Faith. At that unfortunate meeting, no less than half a dozen
Orthodox Hierarchs, who at their consecrations gave solemn oaths
to uphold and defend the Orthodox Faith against every heresy and
innovation, legitimated Rome and all of her errors and heretical
doctrines. With a deft wave of the hand, Patristic and Synodal
condemnations of Rome's heresies spanning ten centuries, not to
mention the Orthodox Church's repeated rejections of the validity
of her priesthood and the efficacy of her sacraments, were
summarily set aside. To add insult to this injury, the same
exoneration silently bestowed on Rome was extended to the Uniate
Churches, the tragic bastard children born of Rome's subterfuge
against the Orthodox. A sorry betrayal, indeed!

Significantly, in keeping with the fraud that it obviously
perpetrates, in the "Internet" "explanation"
of the Balamand agreement, the victory of the Uniate Churches in
exacting what is actually recognition from the Orthodox
ecumenists is presented as a "victory" for Orthodoxy
itself. The supposed limitation on the future function of the
Unia is in reality nothing more than a bone thrown out to the
"East." Apparently offered by the Balamand consultants
to satisfy some assumed hunger, among the Orthodox, for revenge
against the Uniate menace (with its history of violence against
both the consciences and the very persons of our Faithful), this
bone is meant to divert the watchful gaze of the Faithful away
from continued developments on the ecumenical scene and from the
danger that they pose for True Orthodox Christians. The authors
of the "explanation" are not, to be sure, ignorant of
the threat posed to them by the legitimate "watchdog
role" of the Faithful, and, indeed, of proper Orthodox
polity. Thus, they acknowledge the fact that ecumenical
agreements cannot be unilaterally ratified by
"professional" ecumenists, but must have the seal of
approval of the whole Church. In theory, then, they operate on a
very sound "method of dialogue." To quote the
"Internet" document:

...Statements like the Balamand Statement are understood
to be reports on how members of the dialogue or Consultation
are developing their understanding of the problems they are
addressing. Their reports are referred to the heads of their
Churches and to the clergy and people for their consideration
and reflection. It is expected that there will be thoughtful
reflection, response, and examination before any official
decisions can be or should be made [emphasis mine].

The Uniate ruse, which renders, by way of an overt
fabrication, the Balamand betrayal a "victory" for
Orthodox, may have succeeded in deflecting the attention of some
Faithful away from the dark underbelly of political ecumenism.
But nothing can hide the fact that the very "method of
dialogue" theoretically put forth by the Orthodox ecumenists
is in fact a lie. Not only do the accords decided upon at
Balamand, by taking as an operating principle the "ecclesial
reality" of an institution (Roman Catholicism) separated
from the Church of Christ, ignore the legacy of the Orthodox
Patristic and Conciliar witness regarding Roman Catholicism, but
they do so without the approval of the Orthodox people. When were
the Faithful informed of the new understanding agreed upon at
Balamand? Where is the thoughtful reflection of the People of
God? Those few of us who have, indeed, spoken out against the
Balamand betrayal have been dismissed as virtual morons and
branded as schismatics. In practice, then, professional Orthodox
ecumenists and the higher Church administrations that they serve
have discounted the "thoughtful reflection" of the
Faithful about Balamand, have no interest in their
"response," and decry any attempts by the People of God
to "examine" matters "before any official
decisions" are made. Our ecumenical
"professionals" make their decisions, pronounce them to
the Faithful, and then disregard and revile those who oppose such
decisions. These delegates have proved themselves untrustworthy
and deceptive in their failure to report truthfully to the people
whom they servealbeit in a self-appointed capacityand whom
they are bound by Holy Tradition to consult and to hear.

The Sorry Truth about Ecumenism. The real issues that
should be set forth by Orthodox delegates at consultations with
Roman Catholics are the dogmatic aberrations that have removed
Papism from any organic communion with the Apostolic Church of
Christ. But in keeping with the protocols of ecumenical dialogue,
such an approach is taboo. These issues, then, were never raised
at Balamand; nor have they been raised in this follow-up
document. The few Orthodox ecumenists zealous to offer, not a
stone, but bread to the unfortunate heterodoxthe late
Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky was such an ecumenistlong ago
discovered the belligerence and obstinacy of the heterodox
delegates to ecumenical gatherings and disavowed ecumenism as a
path to Christian unity. But the emasculated Orthodox
representatives who remain in the ecumenical movement have, since
then, compromised on point after point of the Faith and have
even, on occasion, openly repudiated the traditional teachings
and practices of the Church. Now they are babbling about
"communion theology" and "sister Churches,"
ideas which apply solely to Churches united in the same Faith and
by a common mysteriological life: that is, to the local Orthodox
Churches and their mutual relations. Heterodox groups have no
place in these formulae. The "Internet" document which
we have considered is a sad and flagrant continuation of the
cowardly deception that professional Orthodox
ecumenistsminority that they arehave undertaken to perpetuate
in the name of the pleroma of the Church. The authors of this
document, representing as they do the "official"
Orthodoxy of worldly, neo-papal "Patriarchalism"
(another innovation meant to replace the criterion of "right
belief" with the prerogatives of administrative and
political power), if they truly believe what they write, should
have the integrity to admit that their defense of Balamand
embodies a conscious rejection of the Orthodox Patristic
consensus. Moreover, if they truly care for their charges, they
must clearly explain why they have chosen not to follow the
Church Fathers on these issues. It would behoove them, too, to
explain to the Orthodox people their new "method of
theology," telling us how they gained these insights and
wherein we might gain them, too. But accountability and openness
do not seem to be the operative principles here. God alone knows
what reasoning has brought the Orthodox ecumenists to where they
are. But we True Orthodox certainly know where such reasoning has
and will lead them. The truth seems to be that, despite their
crafty skills in "ecumeni-talk," our
"professional" Orthodox ecumenists have not thought
things through. Though they brazenly and confidently disregard
the Fathers and Saints of the Churchwhose witness, to their own
peril, they have chosen to set aside, one suspects that they
are not so sure about how to handle their contemporaries, the
loyal Faithful, who, by God-given right, oppose the audacity of
ecumenism. Let us pray, then, that God will enlighten any
well-intentioned people naively caught up in the glamor of the
ecumenical movement and return them to their senses: for the
Orthodox, that they might beware the lie being fed them; and for
the heterodox, that God might inspire in them a spirit of
humility and repentance, the only sure vein to the bosom of the
Church.